Early defeats in the South Pacific in WW2 were the fault of isolationist Republicans who did not properly man the Phillipines.

And modern day Republicans are not isolationist enough.

Cunning.

Is it possible to even decide on the facts anymore? I am not talking about opinions, but facts.

And is everything about money and partisan politics? Is this all that human history is?

It seems to me there is strain of extremist in the world today who is not satisfied unless everyone else is unsatisfied.

They assume that human history and all that compels it, can be boiled down to a D or an R behind the name.

These people are dangerous. Extremes meet in an ugly little circle of hate and mutual distrust.

So I think it might be a good idea when looking at history and subjects like WW2 to remember the enemies were: Tojo, Hitler and Mussolini...not the Republicans or the Democrats.

And considering the fact that there are people in the world today who would gladly wipe us off the face of the earth, if they could, no matter which party won the White House would it not be wise to remember who the enemy really is today?

Islamic fascism and the suicidal terrorism it glorifies is the enemy. And no I am not saying all Muslims are fascists. In fact I would say Muslims are targets themselves.

BTW, Adolph Hitler could not make it across the English Channel much less the Atlantic Ocean. FDR responded to his declaration of war because he felt that sooner or later the Nazis would have to be confronted.

In the 90's Saddam Hussein tried to kill an American president, broke a cease fire and gave refuge to one of the attackers in the first World Trade Center attack. Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1997.

150
comments:

"Early defeats in the South Pacific in WW2 were the fault of isolationist Republicans who did not properly man the Phillipines."

I'm not sure what your source is for this. But given that FDR had been in power for a decade when the Japanese attacked, it's factually incorrect.

As for your larger point about extremes meeting, I'm not convinced. It's true that David Duke and Cindy Sheehan are arm in arm these days. But it's also true that Duke was always repudiated by the GOP, while the Democrats openly embrace their fringe elements. Hell, they even make them their senators and congressmen and presidential nominees.

Interesting topic. I was pondering some stuff somewhat related to this notion of the "chronic malcontents" - i.e, the Left.

A comment thread over at Wretchards provoked me to go looking up some stats about deathrates and crime. I don't have the opportunity to retrace and link here, but I think it is reasonable to state that CW connects increased rates of death by accident and violent crime to demographic increases in the number of young males in a population.

I don't challenge that correllation, or the causal nature of it (I couldn't even if I wanted to), but while looking at numbers over time I noticed that there could well be a correlation, here in the US at least, between the rising crime and the degree of anger expressed by the Left.

The more pissed off the screaming Leftists are the more support they get from the MSM and, perhaps, the more "justified" those with an inherent predisposition to get themselves killed or otherwise engage in violent behavior feel. I don't have access to stats to back me up at the moment, but I believe when recent vandalism and violent crime stats are compiled and become public (another year or two) we will see that these sorts of things are rising in concert with the angry shrieking of the chronically malcontented Left.

BTW, it occured to me (although I recognize this is not a new or unique observation on my part) that the US Left (if not the International Left) are "godless puritans". They are chronically convinced that the rest of us possess suitably degrees of righteous indignation and moral outrage. They have some form of "scripture" and their interpretation of it and none of us can match their purist zeal for it. Godless freakin' Calvinists, the whole lot of them.

Isolationist Republicans did cause much harm. FDR almost single-handedly saved us from the Axis powers. Today's Democrats are quite similar to those Republican isolationists of some seventy years ago. What should that tell you? Never eternally pledge your support for any political party. Always ask, “What have you done for me lately?” Yesterday’s glories should never give them forevermore a free pass.

My initial reaction was similar to yours... "FDR, a Dem - the prototypical modern Dem - was POTUS, so where could this claim come from?"

But it may be (don't have time to research it) that the Republicans, who were certainly more isolationist back then than the Dems, had strong representation in Congress. Idunno.

If that is, in fact, the case, it would be interesting to note that whoever makes the claim would recognize the power of congress to effect national policies when a Dem POTUS is in office but would never make that argument when a Rep POTUS in office. To Lefties Republican POTUSes are always dictators who subvert the political system and Dem POTUSes are victims of the unruly political system.

As for the first part how many times has the WH, the RNC or this blog for that matter mentioned Bin Laden (besides me) in the last month? How many mentions of John Murtha and Howard Dean? Yes, remember who the real enemy is.

As for the second part Hitler did declare war on the US as you allude to, Saddam did not. Saddam also didn't ally himself with Al Qaeda, he did what he could to keep Whahhabi nutcases out of his country for his own self preservation. Hitler proudly and publicly signed a co-defense treaty with the Italians and Japanese. They were the original Axis. Saddam hadn't overrun most of our allies in the region as Hitler had and wasn't capable doing so in any case. He was contained as both Condi Rice and Colin Powell said in 2001, an evil dictator, but no threat to the US or his neighbors. Some big differences there.

I did the research. The Democrats had majorities in Congress. Very large majorities in some cases. In 1932 the Democrats had something like 78% of all House seats.

And bear in mind that not all Republicans of the time were isolationists. They were a subgroup within a minority. The exaggerated attention the isolationists are given by history is something of a mystery.

I suppose that would be Bush, right? Oddly enough, I don't count you as one of the comrades in the fight against terrorism and the promotion of liberty in the Middle East. Quite the opposite, I tend to see you as a partisan hack with no deep principles to speak of. Ever wonder why you don't get no respect here?

The enemy are the left, both foreign and domestic. That includes the bulk of the Democratic party today. The Middle East theater of operations is only one front in a much larger war, much as Italy was just one of the counties we were up against in WWII.

From the standpoint of Kerry, Dean, Galloway, and their ilk, the jihadis are useful cannon-fodder.

The fact that the jihadis themselves regard the Western left as useful idiots does not change that. If/when the Western right is defeated, the left and Islam will have to fight it out between themselves as to who is top dog. But for now they are united against their common enemy.

All this is plain to anyone who follows the commentary coming from the left, includng the nutcase we covered yesterday calling for the volent overthrow of the Bush "regime".

Thanks. If forced to make a bet I would have wagered on a significant Dem majority in Congress. Up until the past few years the Dems have been the nationwide legislative majority for nearly 100 years.

Isolationism is a strong current within human nature. It is particularly strong within the US political culture - we were, after all, initially formed and survived as the "not-Europe" alternative. Drives the Euros bonkers that we don't want to be them when we grow up. But it drives many Americans equally bonkers that we can't just sandbag the borders and let the rest of the world go to hell. Reality bites and the bite is painful.

Some of you folks really do yourselves a disservice by claiming we on the other side of the aisle are Leninsts bent on installing a command economy meant to enslave the masses to the state. Sheesh. What next? Insurance pools are some socialist conspiracy meant to rob hardworking Americans of their hard earned dollars?

knucklehead the argument you cite may come from some guy's book, forget his name, that came out a few months ago that made the claim that falling crime rates may be tied to abortion. Less unwanted children, less crime. Don't know if it holds up but it sounds plausible. A lot more plausible than under the radar cranky Democratic politics inspired vandalism. Rush Limbaugh would be all over that.

"In fact I would say that anyone who is willing to write off tens of millions of his fellow Americans as the enemy because they voted for the other guy is an extremist."

Any definition of "extremist" which includes the majority of the people in the country is not a very useful one, IMO. Whether you like it or not, the majority of people who support the Democrats would rather see us lose the shooting war in Iraq then see the GOP get credit for a victory. What would you call such people?

Whether such people are labled extremists or the enemy is not important. It is important to notice that they exist, and not to keep pretending, as many do, that the leadership of the Democratic party is not represenatative of its supporters.

Whether such people are labled extremists or the enemy is not important. It is important to notice that they exist, and not to keep pretending, as many do, that the leadership of the Democratic party is not represenatative of its supporters.

I have a minor point of disgreement with that. It is important to recognize them as the enemy. Once that step is taken whether or not they are extremists becomes unimportant.

Mark,

Statistically the causal correlation between declining demographics such as the number of males between the ages of 14 and 24 is almost certainly unassailable. That is the demographic for the highest rates of death by accident and participation in violent behavior including crime. I am neither foolish nor innumerate enough to argue that increases in rates of abortion contributed to the decline in that demographic - and others. The generally enhanced economic well-being of the population as a whole also contributed. Oddly enough, economically comfortable and secure people produce fewer children.

The "unwanted" part, however, is a red herring. Firstly, young males are more inclined to reckless and violent behavior regardless of the degree to which they are "wanted" or "unwanted". The so-called "unwanted" may, indeed, be even more pre-disposed to recklessness and violent behavior than the "wanted", but this not an attribute of their "wantedness". They don't have increased likelihood to become reckless and violent criminals because the people who produced them didn't "want" them but, rather, because irresponsible people refused to accept their responsibility to raise them to become otherwise.

""Most democrats are not left-wing jerks, but most left-wing jerks are democrats."

I think you are mistaken in this. It may be true in Texas or Indiana, but it's not true at all in the Democrat bastions on the coasts. Your typical New York Democrat is at least a socialist, and large numbers are outspoken communists(Viva Chavez!). I meet them every day.

As I pointed out to terrye, somebody is electing the current crop of Democratic leadership. Unless we want to follow marks thinking and blame it all on a Rovian plot, the only logical course is to recognize that they are fairly representative of the typical Democratic voter.

That thought is so unsettling to some people that they will come up with elaborate theories as to why it s not true. Has the Mississipi been renamed de nial?

"Some of you folks really do yourselves a disservice by claiming we on the other side of the aisle are Leninsts bent on installing a command economy"

I agree totally with you Mark,some are Stalinists,some are Maoists,Castroites,one world transnationalist,assorted Greens and nihilists,ANSWER,Jihadists,surrenderists,opportunists and political hacks,the rest are clueless.

Flenser, Terrye, if I may barge in, Peter UK, some months ago, opined elsewhere that the White House, at the head of this huge economy and its vast treasure treasure, is such a "glittering prize" (Peter's memorable phrase) that throwing away the rest of the world is not a problem for this era's incarnation of the 'out' party. Ergo, "Screw everything that might keep us out of the White House!"

Ergo BDS, ergo the new isolationism (which also gains Dem impetus from the trade-unionist desire for Smoot-Hawley redux, which would be the page-one issue did it not create for the party the problem of screwing the little-guy-as-WalMarter, and were it not for the astoishingly strong recovery from The Bubble and 911).

I concur. The Democrat Party "leadership" is not leading. They are following. They are giving their supporters precisely what the supporters demand. Most Democrats are, in fact, Leftists. The virulence of their particular strain of Leftoiditis varies by degree but they all suffer the affliction. Those infected with malaria suffer different degrees and frequencies of flare ups, but they all have malaria.

Flenser, I see your point, re constitution of the party. The Dems I see herebouts are mostly conservative "legacy" Dems. The mouthfoaming subversives are in volume, tho, just down the road, nested-up in the faculty of University of Texas/Austin/Travis County. Thank God I don't have to see 'em at the grocery store in Dripping Springs. I see little good in their being. I guess I'm an extremist. Okay, no, they have families, we can't hang 'em. I guess I'm a semi-extremist. \;-)

I am talking about absolutists who have no capacity for moderation and who assume that anyone who disagrees with them is the enemy.

This annoys me because I believe in that people should have some right to privacy, I don't want to see big cuts in medicare and medicaid, I don't want to see Marbury vs Madison overturned, I don't think Martin Luther King was a bad man and I don't want to see any and all moderates demonized on threat of banishment by the right.

By the same token I think that Michael Moore is a traitor. I think that Bill Clinton was an incompetent oppurtunist and I don't like be treated like a fascist because I voted for George Bush.

BTW, flenser, my point in my post was not that Republicans did not do their job in arming the military before the second WW, it was in the fact that some partisan Democrats had convinced themselves of that.

Much like the partisan Republicans who were so sure that FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor and "lied us into a war".

Oh, BTW, to return to my earlier speculation about accidental death and, in particular, crime rates and the potential for some correlation with the dissatisfaction of Leftists...

Lefitists are prone, especially when highly dissatisfied (i.e, when the Republican party holds the presidency and especially when they hold a majority in the legislature), to virulent rhetoric and physical violence. Don't like "globalisation"? Riot and destroy things whenever and wherever the G8 meets. Want a better environment? Burn some car lots and construction projects.

Lefitists, apparently violent by nature, decided in the 60s that it was time to be "active" for "peace". So, of course, their "leadership" siezed stuff, took hostages, and burned things while sending their minions to the roofs to unfurl the Peace and Flowerpower banners. And, of course, the "movement" needed funds so they robbed some banks and killed some policemen. And all the while they increased the virulence of their rhetoric.

What was going on with rates of accidental death and violent crime among youths through all this? Rising by roughly 20% - 25% through the second half of the 60's and all of the 70s before beginning to trend back down to roughly 1960 levels. Leftist rhetorical virulence as well as violence and the advocation of it are on the rise again. I speculate that we will see a corresponding rise in accidental death, vandalism, and violent criminality among youths as data more recent than 2002 becomes available.

We keep talking about leftists being out of control, well yeah, in many ways they are right now...when I was a kid it was the right that was out of control and they could be either Democrat or Republican..and then it went left again with the Viet Nam war.

In both cases, left and right, Democrat and Republican people tend to get out of control when they demonize their opponents and take away their humanity.

Look at mark here. He obviously does not think of Repbulicans as regular human beings.

I know some very strong prolifers who come very close to the same kind of single minded condemnation. But as a general rule, they almost always respect life.

But I think there is a tendency in both sides of of the political spectrum for certain kinds of people to just keep pushing more and more until they come full circle.

I think people should be able to disagree and still be on the same side sometimes.

I know when we did the post on Civil Rights I was actually offended by some of the remarks, but that does not mean the people I disagreed with are bad people. We just disagree, people do that sometimes.

I am talking about absolutists who have no capacity for moderation and who assume that anyone who disagrees with them is the enemy.

Absolutism... puritanism, is merely a matter of degree. If there is a "Left" and a "Right" then there is, somewhere, a dividing line. It may be more a wide, grayish, stripe than it is a line, but somewhere is a border.

I don't think there are enough, if any, Dems to the "right" of wherever that border is to have any significance. The vast majority are comfortably to the left of wherever it is - some of them extemely so. It seems perfectly clear that the Democrat Party has no "anchor" - it is steaming full speed ahead to port. There is no detectable influence within the Party strong enough to counter the leftward movement.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, clearly has influences trying to pull it rightward, leftward, and even anchor it. There is healthy, if heated, debate and disagreement within the Republican party. The Dems, on the other hand, have nobody shouting stop, slow down, or turnaround. The only disagreement seems to be whether 75 MPH is fast enough or to put the pedal to the metal.

I made no claim to the contrary. I do not believe his "leftist" political leanings make him a "bad" person or unworthy of respect.

None of that prevents me from identifying him as one of the enemy. Grant considered Lee a great man worthy of respect. That didn't prevent him from waging war to defeating his enemy.

I view the Democratic Party as the enemy of sensible and civil political discourse in our nation at this time (and for some years in the past). I have chosen to stand on the other side and wage (figuratively speaking) war against them. I respect some, I have nothing but disdain for others.

Maybe, but I have to be honest I don't like being told what to do and I disagree with a lot of social issues when it comes to the Republicans.

I am afraid that Republicans are underestimating the Democrats.

I think the Democrat party is dead now..but it going to come back to life, just like it has before, and when it rises again I think the issues it will win on will be domestic.

Someone like Bayh could give the Republicans trouble down the road and thinking the Democrats are just a bunch of lefties could prove a mistake.

If a leader comes along with a credible foreign policy who does not talk about militarizing the borders or throwing people off of medicaid or outlawing abortion or whatever...I think the Republicans could be in trouble.

As I have said before, I don't recognize the existence of "both extremes", or of the "moderates".

That is, the things themselves exist, but the labels being attached to them are not accurate. It's a subject worth a post sometime. For now, I'll just note that the "moderates" seem to make up no more than twenty percent of the country, and the "extremists" the other eighty percent. And that eighty percent mostly regard themselves as moderates.

I realize that people who have spent a liftime regardng Republicans as the bad guys will find it difficult to break completely with their past. Roger Simon and thibaud have the same difficulty. Their solution is to say that both parties are equally bad. I guess it's a step in the right direction.

I once read a speech given by Taft after Pearl Harbour. He did not blame the whole thing on FDR. He urged everyone to get together behind their country and their president. I wish I could find the link. The contrast between the 1930's isolationists and the lose-at-all-costs Democrats could not be more clear.

I regard your comments about the GOP as a kind of back-handed compliment. They remind me very much of the way the left talks about America - if it's not completely without blemish, then it's no better than the USSR. The most minor infraction by America was seen as directly comparable to the most serious crimes by the communists.

It's a free country, so you can suggest that certain "extremist Republicans" like David are racists if you like. You can expect to get smacked around for it though.

terrye don't expect them to act like a big tent tolerant party anytime soon. It ain't part of the plan. They think the Help America Vote Act means we should bring back the poll tax. I pity you siding with them on your one overarching issue cuz it must be pretty damn uncomfortable on everything else.

So when Republicans say that Democrats are and always have been racist

That is me they are talking about."

I realize it's a problem. I once asked Roger Simon how the blind Jewish loyality to the Democratic party could be explsined, given that FDR refused entry to the US to Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler.

I did not get an answer.

The Democratic party is now what it has been since the late sixties, early seventies. It has not changed, you have. As just about eveyone has noted, it's Iraq position is copied from it's playbook on Vietnam. Bush is to be the new Nixon, resgning in disgrace and ushering in a new era of Democrat dominance.

As for it's racial policies, they have not changed in a couple of hundred years. The minority they seek to pick on does change from time to time. They have always been protecting "their" people from certain "others". Whats the point of winning power if you can't reward your people and punish the others?

Well, the net is for hyperbole--words have to add what proximity removes. So people overstate as a matter of course. Social programs, for instance--being 'for or 'against' seems to be whether or not yone gives a damn about others.

But wait--what if it's not the question of relief, but the question of duration, incentive--and what is in the long-term interest of the short=term beneficiaries?

Suddenly the 'for' and 'against' switch places. It's all in the terms. For or against what? The programs, or the people? And in what duration-frame?

Buddy who's in my big tent? Senate Minority Reid for one, he's anti abortion but I like him otherwise. Same goes for the next Senator from PA, Bob Casey. I agree with Joe Lieberman on almost everything except for his misguided stand on the Iraq War. I agree with John Murtha on almost nothing but his stance on the Iraq War.

Apparently a lot of mainstream religious folks think poor people are vulnerable to class warfare and are letting that be known today. The Christian Right? They think you're worth defending only if you're the pre-born poor or off in Africa somewhere.

"If you want to know the truth I think you and mark have a lot in common."

That's funny, mark seems to think that you and he have a lot in common. Maybe the extremss do meet.

"Bill Clinton was a two term president too. That means a lot of people are not that partisan."

The second does not logically follow from the first.

"Most Americans are not nearly as far right as you are on a lot of things and most Americans don't want to live in an America where people are always at odds."

You have no idea what my positions are on most things. The ones you do have an idea on, I'm in agreement with the majority of Americans, as indicated by elections and polls.

As for people being at odds, the only solution for that is for everyone to agree. I can't see you going for that yourself.

Essentially the "Democratic hawks" like yourself want the country to be run by people who are Democrats, but who are willing to fight the war. It should not come as a surprise to you to discover that most Republicans are not eager to see their party become any more of a clone of the Democrats than it already is.

If keeping the borders open and abortion on demand legal are pressing issues to you, then I agree that you ought not be supporting the Republicans.

I'd prefer we don't get bogged down in whether we refer to Democrats as "opponents" or "enemies". Whichever makes you happy is fine with me. I use the term "enemy" because I believe that the die-hard left, and that includes Dem Party leadership like Pelosi, Kerry, & Dean, wants nothing less that the end of the USA as we know it. They want a Euro style parliamentary welfare state in its place and even that placed under the direction of some international political body. I don't want that and consider that a VERY bad thing (as opposed to simply having some laws and taxes and court cases I don't like).

But "opponents" is fine. Enemies are always opponents. Opponents are always enemies for whatever the contest at hand be it war or sport or politics. I do not believe standard usage of the word "enemy" automatically includes violence against. I suppose it does include severe dislike or even hatred and since I fully admit I dislike, to the point of near hatred (although I prefer disdain and disgust) the Democratic Party, I should consider the Party my enemy but the non-leadership members of it merely my opponents since I have no severe dislike for most - don't even know most.

Do you think AlQaida cares if you are a Republican or a Democrat?

No. Why would they. When they think in terms of US politics they might hate Democrats less than they do Republicans but not enough to stop them from killing either if the opportunity arises.

Do you think that the servicemen and women in this country who are Democrats are the enemy?

No, at least not in any sense other than political. As Flenser has pointed out, though, they lend their support to the Democratic Party which I view as an enemy. But heh, most people, Dems or Reps, don't pay significant attention to what the party they typically vote for is up to. A goodly portion of the citizenry votes party similarly to the way they root for sports teams - just because that's how they grew up.

There is a difference between an enemy and political opponent.

Touched on that above. Nonetheless, some political opponents are the enemy ;)

Jefferson and Adams were opponents, but they were not enemies.

Well, now, Idunno. There was some pretty strong dislike bordering on hatred between them right up to very shortly before they died (on the same day!). I don't have evidence at hand but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Adams considered Jefferson his "enemy". Not sure if it was quite as severe in the other direction.

And let it be remmebered that in that Civil War you spoke of, 600,000 men lost their lives.

I merely grabbed the first example that came to mind of men who were enemies nonetheless recognizing the decency of one another and maintaining respect. I am not advocating civil war. I'll leave that to the Dems ;)

When it was over Lincoln had the band play Dixie.

Heh, the winners pick the music for the parades and write the history books. That's one among many reasons why winning is better than losing.

Well--I'm not the "Christian Right' that I know of. I do wonder why it so terrorizes so much of the left. Abortion?

Abortion is a horrid issue but you need to at least acknowledge that it comes from a place as deep down as the oppo's point about women's rights.

To the CR, it's not about taking of that right, but rather about taking of a life. Some things have no common ground. Policy-wise, Roe/Wade is vulnerable not on the issue of women's rights, but on the issue of the federal role. You know that. But will that stop you from demagoguing it?

There are two *broad* answers to "the poor" from where we stand now.

1) keep upping the income distribution and taxes and accept that affect on GDP growth, and that effect on keeping the poor static, or

2) free the economy from as much drag as possible and offer as much upward-mobility as we can (NCLB is part of that, of course).

Tough choice--Jungle or Plantation?

But the anti-plantation pro-dynamism people may--just may--be interested in the poors' welfare in a quieter and more effective way than are the pro-plantation, anti-dynamism people.

flenser maybe I can help. I think what she was trying to say with the Clinton comment is a majority of Americans preferred a charming policy wonk who could give a good speech to a candidate who couldn't speak in whole sentences and a third party candidate who couldn't make up his mind whether he really wanted to be president in the first election. In the second election we preferred Clinton to an old party retainer whose stated major policy goal seemed to be taking us back to the 1950s.

In other words it wasn't so long ago we elected a Dem prez twice. Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000 and his mandate in 2004 was paper ballot thin last year. As a matter of fact last year 6 million more Americans voted for Dem senatorial candidates than Repubs. Next year the crystal ball polls right now doesn't look good for your side at all. So maybe you should stop acting like you have an agenda to do whatever you like to whoever you like for as long as you like. Hubris is deadly in American politics. Ask Tom Foley.

I didn't mean you, Terrye--I was answering Mark. Personally, I welcome all the Democrats into the war effort, and, I hope that when it's over the DUs will be gone, and the Dems will have a new gen up (Bayhe, as you mentiomned), and the country can get back to the better days of merely hard, but not apocalyptic, politics.

The 50s, in a lot of ways, tho not all, were a high point in civic life. Dole is a high point in American character. The guy who can't talk is in ever other thread condemned for outsmarting you. Like Knuck said--or Flenser was it--a big ball of spaghetti is complex and interconnected but in the end is just a big ball od spaghetti.

Buddy read the article. As for abortion I'd say for a lot of those who oppose it the religious fervor is as every bit as strong as it was for abolitonists 150 years ago.

As for Darfur I'm much more of a hawk than Bush or the CR is. I don't want him to just send $50 million to the African Union for relief. I want him to send a few B-52s or an aircraft carrier's flight group and spend an afternoon decimating Sudan's helicopter bases to get them to recall the janjaweed. If that doesn't get the genocidal SOBs' attention in Khartoum then we can start in on their infrastructure. This wouldn't take a thing away from his pet war in Iraq and would go a long way toward proving his (and our) humanitarian bonafides in the WOT.

Right now I feel more comfortable with the Republican party, but success can be dangerous and people should not assume that just because the other guys is losing right now, the same can't happen to you too. The Democrats made that mistake themselves and look where it got them.

You are a character. Bush wins election by over three million votes, and its "paper thin". But Clinton is elected, twice, with less than fifty percent of the vote and you see that as vindication for the Democratic party.

"...I work with poor old people everyday who worry about things like buying food and medicine...."

Exactly why it's a tragedy to have DC turn every collected dollar into fifty cents worth of services and fifty cents worth of administration costs. should follow the inverse power law, and be 80-20. The "K Factor" eats the misapplied 30% because it's about politics and not efficiency.

See Wretchard on the same matter of the universally-destructive effects of egregious political distortion--as applied to Tookie Williams.

So when Republicans say that Democrats are and always have been racist

That is me they are talking about.

I'm not aware of any general tendency of Republicans to say that Democrats are racists and always have been. Perhaps it is there and I've just missed it. I do believe there is a tendency among Leftists to be "soft" racists; i.e, to hold the sort of attitude that says "those people", Iraqis for example, are incapable of democratic government.

One reason I loathe, detest, and disdain the Democratic Party is, however, that it was the party of the Jim Crow south and the blight of the US inner city. There was nary a Republican south of the Mason-Dixon and precious few, if any, of our major cities have been anything other than Democrat Party machines for 4 or 5 generations. I put the inner city problem squarely around the neck of the Democratic Party. Perhaps racism isn't at the root of their mishandling of that mess - road to hell and good intentions and all that.

I do know that in the experience of my entire adult life I have found it is "liberals" who would typically self-identify as Democrats, who have been more than willing, eager actually, to splat anyone who even questioned their ideas about welfare as "racists". I have not been a Republican all my life but I have been an anti-Democrat most of my cognizant adult life and among the reasons I became such was that I got fed up with being characterized as a bigot and racist for mere disagreement about the nature and ultimate benefits of the welfare system policies we have had over the years.

It was, still is as far as I can tell, the standard claim of Dems against anyone who suggests that our welfare system is ferkakta - racist.

BTW... I think people should be able to disagree and still be on the same side sometimes.

Of course. This is what, after all, civilized political competition - which almost always revolves around the "center" - is all about. Disagree about some things, agree about other things, often to varying degrees, vote, get on with life.

"Right" and "Left" are not actually politically useful terms for most people. Nor are "liberal" or "conservative".

It is impossible to govern a democracy, particularly a representive republican system such as we have, from either the "left" or "right". And "liberals" are rarely liberal about everything in their lives just as "conservatives" are rarely conservative in all of their lives.

Liberal and Conservative are just political labels with little connection to the meaning of the terms in the general sense.

I've lost all track of what we are disagreeing about, if anything. You've been a Democrat for all your life. It is understandable that you would be upset and insulted by attacks on them. My road to loathing the party you belonged to started fairly early in life - as a young man of HS age. It began with a vague awareness of stuff my father was telling me. He had no love for Democrats. He was from the deep south - deep south, can't get any deeper. His dislike for the Democrats was not based upon their alleged support of "civil rights" in the mid-60s. It was based upon the political world they ran, the one he grew up in. He believed Democrats were racists but then I guess the Democrats he knew were racists. My dislike for the Democratic Party began to seriously congeal when I had a brief affiliation with the Teamsters union. Even a HS kid could easily see that the Teamsters were corrupt, exempt from assault and property destruction laws, and solidly in bed with the Democrat Party.

As I got older and became aware of the blight of US inner cities and the unassailable political lock the Democrat Party had on them, my feelings toward the Party grew stronger. I was a soldier through Jimmy Carter's administration - that didn't help. The next Democrat POTUS was a reprehensible jerk who would have been fired for his behavior if he worked for almost any major US corporation. I have a mother, three sisters, a wife, and two daughters. Real men do not behave the way Bubba did and does. Since then they've nominated Al Gore and John Kerry for POTUS. Ted Kennedy is one of their elder statesmen. I can't find any reason to have anything but contempt for the Democratic Party.

I hope you realize that my contempt for the party does not extend to everyone who registered as part of it. There is room and need for welfare in our country. The Dems can take credit for that. But they corrupted the systems and will not allow them to change to meet the changing needs of the country. It goes on and on, Terrye. It isn't personal toward you but I loathe the Party you belonged to for so long.

"In other words it wasn't so long agowe elected a Dem prez twice. Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000 and his mandate in 2004 was paper ballot thin last year."

" So maybe you should stop acting like you have an agenda to do whatever you like to whoever you like for as long as you like. Hubris is deadly in American politics.

Markg8 seems to have a tenuous grasp of democracy....his side lost...and yes the winners can do what they want...that is the system.Unfortunately Mark comes from the one party wing of the Democrats,if he is indeed a Democrat,where the political concensus breaks down.The belief in a natural party of government,the illegitimacy of elected governments if they are not formed by your party seems so 1933.

Like it or not we're not going back to the 1950s folks. Maybe it's a good thing there are places like DU, LGF and Free Republic for today's Lee Harvey Oswalds and John Hinkleys to vent. I dunno. But maybe the rest of us ought to stop holding up the most foolish as paragons on the other side to pillorary.

Goddamnit, mark, you shit--what do you think you and your bunch will do to GWB the instant he sends the strike on the Janjaweed? Yes, politics are distorting right & wrong--because you people are the party of the oppo, and you will cause a loss of the WOT--starting in Iraq--if USA strikes in Darfur/Khartoum.

I have known some conservatives I was not crazy about either, but that does not mean I despise the Repubalicans, I never did.

Even when I was voting for Democrats I did not hate Republicans.

And when I thought of liberal growing up, I thought of the kind of people that did not fight letting women get the vote, did not fight letting working people get things like unemployment insurance and in general were willing to help people out when they needed it.

I think that overtime liberals have become reactionary because they were in control for too long and did not know where and when to draw the line.

In some ways I think the Democrats were victims of their own success.

I don't think anyone wants to return to 1925 either. Laissez faire is dead and gone along with communism.

"As for Darfur I'm much more of a hawk than Bush or the CR is. I don't want him to just send $50 million to the African Union for relief. I want him to send a few B-52s or an aircraft carrier's flight group and spend an afternoon decimating Sudan's helicopter bases to get them to recall the janjaweed. If that doesn't get the genocidal SOBs' attention in Khartoum then we can start in on their infrastructure."

So when Republicans say that Democrats are and always have been racist

That is me they are talking about.

When you say that Democrats are and always have been socialists.

That is me and most of my family you are talking about.

Look, I was a Democrat (and Labour Party supporter) most of my life too. But when i hear Republicans say something to the effect that the Democratic party is and always has been racist I do not take that to mean "That is me they are talking about." At least, not in the sense you seem to be taking it. No decent Republican of my acquaintance thinks that i personally used to be racist.

What I take them to mean is that the impact of the parties I once voted for was in fact racist. And they are right. And even more right for the "socialist" tag.

I am culpable to the extent that I formerly misperceived that fact. But then I'm culpable of many foolish things associated with my younger years - as I imagine we all are.

I admire your courage. It's times like these that I so hopelessly wish I were more articulate.

But as for the Democrats being political opponents vs enemies, I blame the MSM and the strong influence of the left via blogs and Soros money. All have contributed to the extremist rhetoric that has taken over the Democratic party.

Bush does share a part of the responsibility, though I don't think he had a choice. I'm speaking of the fact he has disdain for the MSM and doesn't allow them into the inner circles like the Democrats do.

Thus the MSM considers the Bush administration the enemy, rather than merely the government over which they are watchdogs. Add this resentment to their normal disdain for Republicans and you end up with hit piece after hit piece against the administration and all of its policies.

And this feeds the Left who feeds it back to the Dems. And since the Dems have no center of gravity in the leadership (their being almost blackmailed into allowing Dean to be DNC chair is both a symptom and a cause of their hysterical rhetoric) they have drifted farther and farther to the Left.

Which feeds into the MSM which feeds it back out and fires up the Lefty blogs and the circle jerk continues.

The Dems do not have the Whitehouse, they do not have the Senate, they do not have the House, they are losing the SC, and they have no access to the administration. But they do have the MSM because the MSM hates the administration as much, if not more, than they do. So they're under the illusion that all they have to do is yell louder to get their power back.

If the Dems did not have the MSM, they would be forced to look at themselves and find a center of gravity and real policies. But their dependence on the media has made them lazy and reactionary.

I don't think the Dems are an enemy. I think the Left is. And the Left is eating the Dems.

but back to mark--"paper=thin" 2004 victory? three percent is a historically BIG (presidential) electoral margin, and what about the rest? Did the American people not landslide your ass in the senate, house, and governorships? Did spokesmouth Tom Daschle--protege of the guy who invented the modern smear--George Mitchell--not get the American people's boot up the yinyang?

You think you can just WISH it was all a squeaker and have it have BEEN so?

Exactly why it's a tragedy to have DC turn every collected dollar into fifty cents worth of services and fifty cents worth of administration costs.

And this is true of all levels of government. $2 spent for every $1 of goods and services - assuming the government is only typically inefficient rather than corrupt. In fairness, however, some portion of the $2 is spent attempting to make sure we don't spend $3 ;), the hard costs (the dollars spent) of "anti-corruption" safeguards is nearly as high as the costs of the corruption we try to prevent. Of course corruption has intangible costs that grow very high over time.

So what the hell is going on? Anyone want to fess up? And no, I'm not going to go back and read all 87 comments. It looks like dull stuff: name calling, hooting, and overgeneralization, Harriet Miers redux. Do I need to whack someone upside the head? Just because markg8 is here doesn't mean you'll can go wild and start hooting and stomping.

All of this could have been easily avoided were it not for Lord North's obstinate stupidity. And Fox's perfidy, of course.

The Rockingham Whigs have been the only party of true sensibility these past 270 years and I fear that until a majority of those bearing the responsibility of suffrage recognize that fact little good will be accomplished.

BTW - FDR had a majority in the Senate and House from his election in '32 straight through the '40 campaign where one of his biggest promises was not "to send any American boys to foreign wars". The size of the American garrison anywhere in the world would seem to be the responsiblity of the party which had held both executive and legislative power for the nine years and eight months preceding Japan's attack.

Buddy Joe Biden last summer was on the Senate floor trying to get Bush to cajole the Europeans into sending troops to Darfur. The response? Silence. Lieberman last week publicly called for Bush to set up a bipartisan victory committiee. Silence. Murtha sent a long letter to Bush urgently asking him to change the policy in Iraq a year or so ago. 7 months later he got a response from a flunky politely telling him to take a hike. This is the guy who twisted arms in the House for Bush's father in 1991 to get support to boot Saddam out of Kuwait.

Bush not only doesn't listen to the other side he doesn't even listen to others in his own party like Lugar, Hagel and McCain. Instead he sends out his attack dogs at the RNC with white flag ads to attack Dems. He's in his own little bubble, taking no counsel and brooking no dissent and that's why both TIME and Newsweeks' current issues have stories to that effect. The response to that? His series of speeches this week, finally somewhere besides a military base where the applause is as mandatory as attendance where we're treated to his cocksure attitude again. I don't think that's gonna help. They just finished interviewing Repub members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on NPR and only Lugar heard much of today's speech. He's not listening to them and they in turn are starting to tune him out.

exactly, Syl--I urge you read Wretchard's (short, pointed) meditation on why Tookie-whores get Tookies executed. Why PC has finally--inevitably--sent white Australians storming the streets. Distorted politics are going to be the end of us, if we don't watch out. Won't be the first time in human history, either. Tower of Babel actually exists--near Baghdad.

Even Mara Liason (sp?) of NPR disagrees with you. It would make no difference if Bush listened to every tom, dick, and harry in America and called them all in for Friday chats, he would still be doing the same thing. He believes in it, as do all of us here.

The 'bubble' thing is just a hit piece that shows the resentment of the press that Bush has so much disdain for them.

Knucklehead--yep--look at SarBox in the private sector--average compliance cost 600K/yr/company. Yet, some say the 'wasted' SarBox $$$ is bringing in foreign investors--no longer as scared of us as under the Big Bubba Bubble Rules. Total cost/benefit is one thing--however it plays out--but for certain the one-size-fits-all theory of regulation stifles individual ready-to-go-public enterprise below the 600K mad-money level.

Yep. The Republic - not just the Republican Party needs a "water's edge" opposition and it sure as hell doesn't need a couple of "me too" Dems trying to climb in the front car of the parade after a major battle is over. Your previous post lays out the reasons for the current state of affairs quite well. I just don't see how the differences that you elucidate are going to be reconciled within the party as it exists.

There is a growing space for a new party but the Dems retention of the Blue Castles - and all the patronage that goes with their control - make it extraordinarily difficult for centrists (if there are enough of them) to gain control and change direction. It's an interesting political conundrum to examine from the outside but it's sure no fun to live through.

The fact that some American troops are not living through it is going to make it very hard for those who understand the price being paid to forgive and forget. Dean &c. are generating an animus among many Americans that will never fade.

Mark, your 3:48PM--yes, in the great cauldron of DC all sorts of things are bubbling--the heat goes up, so does the bubbling. I could sit here and type up a laundry list of good things being said a few feet away from your laundry list (see what Jack welch just said on Fox--how what Bush has done to power the economy is nothing short of miraculous--this is THE Jack welch--of GE--America's top businessman, as he is called--and not a GOPer at all). Newsweek has gone so far down the Koolaide sink that it carries no weight outside Newsweek, and TIME Magazine?

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Time Inc. today slashed 105 employees from its rolls, including longtime company heavyweights such as Jack Haire, exec VP in charge ofcorporate ad sales; Richard Atkinson, exec VP in charge of the news and information group; Eileen Naughton, president, Time magazine; David Kieselstein, president, the parenting group; Fred Poust, who ran corporate ad sales under Mr. Haire; and Steve Buerger, who also worked in corporate sales.

see any link there? Poor out-of-work people, right here at Christmas--shame on you, Mark.

Rick,"The fact that some American troops are not living through it is going to make it very hard for those who understand the price being paid to forgive and forget."

Because they are deadwood left over from the 60s and 70s,many see the military in the same light as the conscript army that fought the Vietnam War.The new generation are educated,tough and smart.With the internet and modern communications they know they have beeen traduced.Not a few will go into politics..where they will clean house.

You probably won't read this since you'll be away for awhile (have a safe trip if you are traveling)...

I have known some conservatives I was not crazy about either, but that does not mean I despise the Repubalicans, I never did.

This is, as far as I can tell, at the level of individuals. There is no reason for sane and sensible people to "hate" individuals for party affiliation or some generalized "conservative" or "liberal" notions they hold. That's just people.

The animosity I hold I hold for the Democrat Party. And I believe I have perfectly good reasons for it. I laid out some of them here in an earlier comment.

Even when I was voting for Democrats I did not hate Republicans.

Nor do I hate Democrats. I hate their party - the organized political machine (I hate the word "hate" but I'm weary of dancing around it).

And when I thought of liberal growing up, I thought of the kind of people that did not fight letting women get the vote,...

Re: the 19th Amendment, here's an NYT article from June 5, 1919 (I cannot vouch for the veracity of the site and I ain't hitting the microfiche to check it).

Ratification vote among Senators:

Republican: for - 36, against - 8Democrat: for - 20, against - 17

At least for this particular portion of the "liberal" canon, the Dems barely measured up. I guess the party that didn't want blacks to vote back home weren't particularly strongly for women voting nationally. Without 4:1 Republican support, vs. 20:17 Democrat support the 19th Amendment would not have been adopted - at least not in that go 'round.

I'd be willing to wager that most Americans figure it was the Dems who put through womens suffrage in the US.

...did not fight letting working people get things like unemployment insurance

Fine. Federal assumption of some level of responsibility for employment and welfare payments to the unemployed is a New Deal era Democratic initiative. I can't quickly find any record of how the vote broke down for the Unemployment Act of 1946 (wherein the federal government first got into the unemployment insurance game). We'll presume it was wildly supported by liberal Democrats and opposed by conservative Republicans. Even the Dems couldn't have gone forever without doing something nice for somebody ;)

...and in general were willing to help people out when they needed it.

I don't think there's any huge record of Republicans in particular, or conservatives in general, being against the notion of helping people out when they need it. I just don't see this as a particularly "liberal" or "conservative" issue.

Self-described "liberals" have long painted "conservatives" and "Republicans" as the "Are there no workhouses?" gang, but to my knowledge that is not accurate.

I think that overtime liberals have become reactionary because they were in control for too long and did not know where and when to draw the line.

Became beholden to handing out too much of other people's money to too many disparate groups of people. And also of giving inordinate levels of power over policy to small (and often shrinking) groups of people (such as labor unions). The handouts eventually, inexorably, switched from helping people in need to propping up political machines and buying votes. If one wishes to take money from Peter and give it to Paul one may rest assured of Paul's vote.

In some ways I think the Democrats were victims of their own success.

Of course. As will Republicans if they manage to hang onto majority status long enough. The Dems had it for the best part of a century - way too long.

I don't think anyone wants to return to 1925 either. Laissez faire is dead and gone along with communism.

Well, the puritan libertarians might. But you are correct. Laissez faire is dead. Probably even deader than communism.

The thing is a continuum, and somebody will be at the bottom no matter what--in the land of trillionaires, a billionaire is 'poor'. In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is King.

So, here's the left argument "Let's ALL be poor, it's only fair."

And this ain't bad philosophy, really (no hurt feelings anymore), so long as two things don't exist: time and motion.

But if those two things DO exist, then the poor can rise and the rich can fall, and so why not have a chance, anyway, at some hope for a better tomorrow? If not for you, then your kids--or theirs, or theirs?

Peter, I've just spoken with Howard "Ted" Kerry of the DNC (Do Nothing Committee), and it seems that some sort of "race-memory" of the building of the Pyramids is still about in nearby Egypt, and that some of these people have consented to hoist a Carrier Battle Group or two out of the Red Sea, and roll the vessels across the desert on giant date-palm tree trunks until it--the CBG, not the Red Sea, is within combat radius of the Janjaweed hideouts.

As for the first part how many times has the WH, the RNC or this blog for that matter mentioned Bin Laden (besides me) in the last month? How many mentions of John Murtha and Howard Dean? Yes, remember who the real enemy is.

Mark, I assume then that you think that if bin Laden were eliminated, all these problems --- Israel vs Palestine, Iranian nukes, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon --- would have gone away?

terrye don't expect them to act like a big tent tolerant party anytime soon. It ain't part of the plan. They think the Help America Vote Act means we should bring back the poll tax. I pity you siding with them on your one overarching issue cuz it must be pretty damn uncomfortable on everything else.

Hmmm. There's the voting thing again. how'd that get into this thread?

Yes Buddy,But have you made an agreement with them for the rapid withdrawal the Democrats demand? Double time for return trips.Might it not be cheaper to extend the Suez canal,this has the added advantage of including the French.